Tuesday, March 15, 2011

LOL NYT

So I'm looking at the latest New York Times bestseller list, and their combined print and ebook bestsellers for the week ending March 5th.

John Locke and Amanda Hocking aren't on it, despite selling thousands of ebooks per day.

Neither am I.

The NYT has decided that indie book sales don't count.

On the 5th, my ebook The List was outselling Nancy C. Johnson's Her Last Letter, which did make the NYT list. Johnson is an indie (way to go Nancy!) but apparently the NYT doesn't have anyone on staff that can confirm that.

What are those people called?

Oh, yeah. Reporters.

So, am I angry at the NYT for snubbing me?

Hell, no. I'm amused.

Want to see something even more amusing?

Ain't life funny?

I'm outselling the NYT, plus I have a better star rating.

The same can be said about Slingo. And let's be honest. When it comes to integrity, Slingo also has the NYT beat.

Anyway, I don't want this blog to be about how stupid, backward, and ultimately irrelevant the NYT has become.

I don't want to waste my time raging against a dinosaur who continues to ignore the fact that the meteor has already hit the earth.

I don't need to have my name appear on a faulty, bullshit bestseller list to feel good about myself or my accomplishments, and I don't need recognition from a bunch of morons who would rather try to maintain the fading status quo than report the truth.

Instead, I would like to post a bestseller list of my own.

There are quite a few popular newspapers in the USA. Newspapers that sell many, many copies.

132 comments:

LOL! I think most serious writers know that the NYT bestseller list, while a hurdle many of us always wanted to "clear" by being on it, doesn't really mean that much if one wants accurate data about what is selling.

It's funny how many writers who have made it to the list use "New York Times Bestseller" as a qualifier with their name/bio.

Of course IndieAuthors don't count in the NYT...it makes perfect political sense. Can you imagine how much their New York agent-subscribers are smarting from the stratospheric success of anyone on RSullivan's Kindle1000 list, or similar guerrilla list? Their nepoti-nistic cocktail parties must be reduced to sip-and-simmers.

Until self-identified IndieAuthors are subscribing en masse to the NYT the publishers are going to woo the whims of their own.

Having worked as a journalist myself, I actually very much agree with Joe's comments. A key problem with journalism is that the news agencies and newspapers spend their time recycling the same old stuff over and over again - with little attempt at investigating/research in depth. It's a shame, although on the other hand, when they start realising that self-publishing is surging, then things will hopefully change quite quickly.

On a completely separate note, have a look at the results of this survey by the Book Depository of 91,500 customers worldwide: 'Price and range have been highlighted as the most important factors in buying habits of online book buyers, with recommendation and review less crucial.' Here's the link: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/recommendation-and-review-less-important-online-shoppers.html.

Wow, Joe. The NYT is sounding more and more like Fox News. You know, Fair and Balanced. ;)

Just wanted to share a link to Randy Ingermanson's blog. He recrunched some numbers that Nathan Bransford posted comparing agency model pricing, etc. The information regarding the big 6 and Amazon is quite revealing.

As a former journalist (I'm beginning to think a lot of indies came from those trenches), I have to openly laugh. I quit writing for magazines because I was tired of their outward bias. They have their own agendas and they want to convince everyone their news the only news.

Thanks Joe for removing the blinders - maybe more people will see the truth now. ;)

I just found your blog yesterday, and, as a young writer trying to figure out how to get out there, this post put publishing into further perspective for me. I know there are a lot of people laughing, but it's the NYT and other outlets that teach so many writers that self-publishing and small press are not serious career moves, and that's just not funny... So thank you for making light of this list that's thought of so highly by so many of us. It's a helpful boost in confidence as I start to explore the wider world of publishing :)

Hello--the entire publishing world revolves around new york--the lunches, the happy hours, the perception of power. They are not, as an industry, going to hand that over willingly.

I just read "advice" from an agent about the care and feeding of agents, that actually encouraged gifts with the query (the more elaborate the better), argued that you must stay loyal to your agent for your entire career, and that you should acknowledge them in your book (you know, as opposed to that arising organically from actual appreciation).

It's all about ego and you self-pubbing doesn't play into that.

Think of real estate--the agents kiss the homeowners ass, right? But with books, the one owning the product begs the agent.

Actually those newspaper numbers also show how badly screwed the newspaper industry is. Are those circulation numbers, or actual sales? Either way, take out the two national papers and only one metropolitan area supports a million.

As a side note, the wikpedia entry (which cites figures from a group whose web sites requires paying to get the figures) on circulation from last fall shows the NYT in the top ten:

Is it just me, or does someone else wish Anon posted a link to this gift-hoarding, loyalty-requiring, God of the Earth agent's site?

I've never seen an agency say any of these things, but I could use a good laugh.

What should my Google search string be for this one? "How to kiss A$%?"

Anon posted:

"Hello--the entire publishing world revolves around new york--the lunches, the happy hours, the perception of power. They are not, as an industry, going to hand that over willingly.

I just read "advice" from an agent about the care and feeding of agents, that actually encouraged gifts with the query (the more elaborate the better), argued that you must stay loyal to your agent for your entire career, and that you should acknowledge them in your book (you know, as opposed to that arising organically from actual appreciation).

It's all about ego and you self-pubbing doesn't play into that.

Think of real estate--the agents kiss the homeowners ass, right? But with books, the one owning the product begs the agent.

"They're new to this, and it's still a bit of a chore to separate out the legit self-publishing outlets from the glorified vanity presses."

Why should they bother? If a self-pubbed book is genuinely selling more than trad published books, then who cares if it's through CreateSpace or *shudder* PublishAmerica?

On the NYT ebook list, they still have Victorine Lieske listed (#26), but not Amanda Hocking or John Locke. I can't quite figure that out-- it seems like they must have included her in error, without realizing CreateSpace is self-pubbed, but you'd think they'd figure it out and remove her eventually. Nevertheless, it's good to see a couple of indies on the list!

You have to understand Joe that you haven't been approved by the tastemakers and the arbiters of what is worthy inside the world of traditional publishing. Just because many thousands of people buy and enjoy your books, it doesn't mean a thing. The RIGHT people haven't spoken yet. I mean, for all the NYT knows, some of the folks who purchased your novels could live in... Iowa, or Kansas. Let's get serious here.

Laughably obvious bias, as Joe exposes here, has reduced the NYT and other MSM (mainstream media) outlets to increasing irrelevancy, as far as most people are concerned. The Legacy Media are bleeding subscribers, advertisers, and employees, without a clue what to do about it. At the same time, their default on their primary responsibility -- factual news coverage -- has fueled the rapid rise of alternative news media, including a multitude of cable and online platforms.

And as Joe also has been documenting, the same trend is undoing the MSM's kissing cousins among the Legacy Publishers. In the same way, the Big 6 are bitterly clinging to traditional publishing methods, trying desperately to prop up a dying dead-tree model. Meanwhile, new technologies -- such as ebooks and POD -- are empowering individual authors to compete successfully against entrenched members of the publishing Establishment.

As we look and laugh at the MSM's faux "bestseller lists," authors should decide what their ultimate goals and priorities are.

Are you willing to sacrifice your creative independence and potential income for crumbs of attention and approval from self-anointed cultural elites? Is your writing goal to express your vision and reach readers who share it -- or is it merely about winning "status" and "recognition" in the eyes of an Establishment whose days are numbered, anyway?

Who do you trust? -- According to Wikipedia, "Bestseller reports from companies such as Amazon.com, which appear to be based strictly on auditable sales to the public, may be at odds with bestseller lists compiled from more casual data, such as the New York Times lists' survey of retailers and publishers. The exact method for ranking the New York Times bestseller lists is a closely-guarded secret."

The NYT is one of those organizations built around the traditional book model that hasn't worked in the indie authors yet and is thus becoming increasingly irrelevant for it's stated purpose of reporting "best selling" books. It's not alone though. There are other similar dinosauric organizations. For example the MWA, still requires a "traditional" pedigree for entry.

I used to work as a bookseller. To think of all those bookstores that revolve around that list every week -- rearranging the shelves making personnel memorize the new list (not that it changes too much from week to week).

There are other similar dinosauric organizations. For example the MWA, still requires a "traditional" pedigree for entry.

I think SFWA and RWA are the same. It seems like all of these organizations, as well as NYT, would do better to use an objective measure of professional success, like sales numbers. Given how long it took SFWA and even RWA to recognize epublishing at all, I don't expect change soon. I think it is more likely that an indie author's organization will rise first.

It blows my mind how narrow minded old-business can be. Are they somehow threatened by your success? Afraid to give you free publicity by fairly reporting your sales? I know you got a laugh out of it, but as a brand new indie it scares me a little.

No really, maybe I am being really naive here, but what IS the real reason the NYT doesn't include indies in their list? A book is a book, right? What do they gain by leaving out whole industry segments?

And how long can they keep the blinders on? Are they going to dedicate someone in their staff to track down each author on a preliminary list just to make sure no riff-raff sneak through to the final list? In what different ways will they try to force the redefinition of the word 'bestseller'?

The NYT bestselling list isn't the only biased list out there. Take a look at the "B&N Top 100" ebooks list and you won't see an indie author on it either. Unless, I missed something but, I don't think so...

Indie authors only make an appearance on the B&N Nook Books lists under "Pub it!" and "Nookbook deals". Does that mean that no indie author has sold enough ebooks to make it into the "B&N top 100" ebooks list? I have a hard time believing that.

Considering B&N intrinsic connection with traditional publishers, we can see that by protecting the big 6, B&N is in fact protecting their own brick and mortar stores. They have a vested interest in excluding indie authors from their top 100 ebooks list.

The self-preservation of these institutions is on the line. Of course they will resist change at every turn. It pains me to say it but, those traditional institutions (print media, bookstores, publishers) are smart in forming such an alliance.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen the same strategy with the indies. Right now, the indies are just a herd of cats. Easily controlled and pushed around. We see examples of this when:

It will take an incessant and strong banging on that glass ceiling before it breaks. We can only find that kind of strength in numbers. An indie organization would be nice... but, where to start? It's all so very daunting...

Yesterday I met a woman who is busily querying agents. She is beginning what will be a messy divorce and hopes to sell her book soon because "she needs the advance." I suggested self-publishing.

Me: Why don't you consider self-publishing it?Her: But if I do that, I'll never really be "published," though, will I?Me: Define "published."Her: A big advance and a spot on the NYT bestseller list.Me: Hmm. I define "published" as a book available for people to buy, download, and read as soon as possible, with a minimum of fuss and with as much $$$ as possible coming back to me. Her: No, I just don't think that's for me. I've always dreamt of that NYT spot and I've always known I wouldn't be a 'real' writer til I got there.

Gisele, I disagree that this "herd of cats" should, or needs to be, organized. An "organized indie group" seems to be an oxymoron.

And organize for what purpose, anyway? To shake fists collectively at the Gatekeepers, whom indie authors don't want or need? To display indie books in chain bookstores that are rapidly disappearing, when most indie sales are of ebooks? Or to gain notice on the NYT list, which fewer and fewer people are reading, and which is becoming a complete joke?

Such institutions are facing declining influence, if not extinction. They no longer matter to an author's success.

The old adage, "Living well is the best revenge," comes to mind. That ought to be enough.

"Anyway, I don't want this blog to be about how stupid, backward, and ultimately irrelevant the NYT has become."

Yes, that would become a full-time job.

Media like the Times once controlled the news. That's no longer true. They still control who gets to say "NY Times #1 bestseller" on their cover, and DAMMIT they're going to hang on to that as long as they can. They have a kinship with the Big Traditional Publishers, and admitting that e-books are taking over would feel like... a betrayal.

But it won't last. Soon they'll have to acknowledge e-books. They'll have no choice, once they start outselling bound paper books.

Seems to me that B&N does a fine job of including indie authors in their best seller lists on the site. Not sure where people get this, but I keep hearing it. Go right now to nookbooks, then teens, then teen fiction.

Talking about "unbiased" - you want to know something scary - your specific blog is banned on my work computer do to its McAfee rating.

Of course, it could just be some kind of internal block by my employer, which tries to control all outside activities, particularly those that could help me retire early. Or maybe the powers that be are messing with your McAfee rating. :-(

One would think that the NYT, a publication that's generally left leaning - or at least one that's definitively not right leaning - would have sympathy for the underdog. I wonder what their reasoning is.

That is true. I appreciate you pointing that out. I have a feeling though, that it may have been a fluke on NY Time's part... In the meantime, yay for Nancy and Victorine!

Ellen Fisher replied "As far as I know, it does". In response to my comment that Nookbook top 100 list doesn't include indie authors.

I have not seen an indie author on B&N Top 100 List for ebooks. It is possible that a stealthy one may have snuck unnoticed by me but, I honestly haven't seen any listed.

Robert Bidinotto replied " I disagree that this "herd of cats" should, or needs to be, organized. An organized indie group seems to be an oxymoron."

The organization of indie authors, who by nature have turned away from the establishment of publishers is indeed an oxymoron. The irony of my own suggestion wasn't lost on me. LOL.

Robert Binotto continued: "And organize for what purpose, anyway? To shake fists collectively at the Gatekeepers, whom indie authors don't want or need? To display indie books in chain bookstores that are rapidly disappearing, when most indie sales are of ebooks? Or to gain notice on the NYT list, which fewer and fewer people are reading, and which is becoming a complete joke?"

No. We do all the fist-shaking right here, we don't need an organization for that. The interests of indie authors would have nothing to do with traditional interests (for a lack of a better term) such as the ones you pointed out (bookstore placement, NYT list, gatekeepers...). Indie authors' turf is ebooks and therein lies the rub...

Concerns that Amazon may arbitrary remove titles from their store (as they have done with some erotica titles for instance) or; Amazon doesn't allow indie titles to be offered for free or; B&N temporary removal of indie erotica titles from their store or; the impending uncertainty of what's going to happen in the summer once iTunes start charging Amazon 30% to list their titles on iTunes. You know, things of that nature.

Let me mention that words like union and organization send chills up my spine. It's just not something I am into. Honestly. Perhaps, I was thinking of something more along the lines of an alliance of indie authors. Everyone is still independent (as the "indie" would suggest) but connected to a group of authors with shared interests. The purpose of such group would be to give indie authors the necessary clout and weight to negotiate with the giants (Amazon, iTunes, B&N, etc...) But, perhaps, it's not a feasible idea. I dunno.

Jussi Keinonen replied... "Of course they are, they are a business. ;) As long as someone makes a profit, they don't want to hurt their profit sources. They are sitting on a fence, and it must be painful at times"... to my comment that B&N has a vested interest in protecting the big 6 interests.

I completely agree with you. As long as there is a profit to be made, people will always have a bias to protect their own interests.

gniz mentioned: "Seems to me that B&N does a fine job of including indie authors in their best seller lists on the site. Not sure where people get this, but I keep hearing it. Go right now to nookbooks, then teens, then teen fiction. Tons of indie authors on the list".

Once you get that specific on your search, you will see tons of indie authors for sure. But I don't think they are represented on the "B&N Top 100" list. I really could be wrong about this but I'm not seeing any listed... Anyone with eagle eyes willing to confirm this?

With a passion, I hate to see injustices in the world. It seems like so many businesses/people don't care about the best interests of their fellow men/women. Life is about them and what they can get for themselves. They're ruled by their own selfish desires.

Maybe now, with this indie revolution and other business progressions, the time has come for the world to change for the better. Now the "good" people who believe in truth, kindness, and sharing (all basic concepts) will gain power and success. I'm ready for the change--aren't you?

If you'd like to clarify, Bowerbird, feel free, but that last blurt of words didn't make any sense. If English isn't your first language, perhaps you meant something other than "costs." If you did mean that box office results factor in what a movie "costs" to make, you're wrong.

The only fair way to make these lists is to tally up how much a book (indie or otherwise) makes, not how many units are sold. .99 cents is what you'd pay for something on the Wendy's dollar menu (something you consume in a minute or two).

Maybe a book that sells 100,000 copies at $9.99 should be ranked the same as a book that sells a million copies at .99 cents.

"anonymous" said:> If you did mean that > box office results factor in > what a movie "costs" > to make, you're wrong.

of course i didn't mean _that._what an idiotic thing to say!

you try to put those words in my mouth, then "correct" me.

i didn't bother to "deny" thati'd said such an idiotic thing,because i shouldn't have to...

because only an idiot would'vemisinterpreted things that way.

yet here you are, coming at meagain, with the same lame shit.

get a clue, anonymous. really!

if you had paid any attention-- any at all! -- to the thread,you'd know the suggestion isthat the bestseller lists couldbe weighted by the unit-costof the book, where "unit-cost"refers to the price of the book,i.e., how much it costs a buyer.

so a $20 book will be weighted20 times more than a $1 book.

in other words, you would countthe dollars coming in the door...

which is how the movie industrycounts things -- the box office...

so a $14 ticket bought in l.a.counts twice as much as the$7 ticket bought in ames, iowa.

and book retailers _could_ maketheir "bestseller" lists that way...

but then they would _not_ be"bestseller lists", they would be"biggest buyer ripoff" lists or"biggest middlemen dreams"lists. because "bestseller" hasalways meant "most buyers"...

and besides, like i said above,the book industry engages intoo much pricing hypocrisyto count the _real_ dollars...

they have the "list price" andthen they have the "amazon"price, and then they havethe "bookstore" price, andthe "chain bookstore" price,and the "walmart" price andthe "remainder table" priceand the "used-book" price...

and then there are all thekickbacks and "comps" andcoop payments, which willalso have to be computed,and most of those are stilltop-secret need-to-knowtype items. so no, any typeof "weighted list" will fail...just like corporate houses...

NYT list said explicitedly that they will exclude self-published. A few have "snuck on" - and were immediately outed by Publishers Weekly (Nancy Cartwright) I'm not sure why/how Victorine gets on as CreateSpace (her listed publisher) is clearly "self".

A bit off subject but found an interesting post today about someone "in publishig" looking and advising people about why they shouldn't "self pub" Here is the link to: Five Things you need to know about the eReveolution I know so many here don't know anything about this topic - so this is must reading - try not to read it while drinking as you may spew liquid from your nose ;-)

I have no idea why I got on the NYT's best sellers list. They list "CreateSpace" as my publisher. I can't imagine that was a mistake, they have to know I'm self-published. But why they listed me and not any of the other indies, I have no idea. I swear I didn't pay anyone off!

I'm just starting in the cover design business after years of doing other types of graphic design. Any time I mention this new venture to anyone who knows the ebook publishing biz they ask if I've seen your covers and if I've read your blog. You are a popular and well respected writer (not that you need me to tell you that! :) )

Now that I've been here, I need to go beyond seeing the covers and reading the blog. I've got to read some of the books! If nothing else comes from this venture, I've been introduced to a whole world of great authors that I didn't know existed.

I'd love some feedback. I'm using blogspot while I work on putting a real website together, and I'm offering some *killer* introductory rates to help build my portfolio and give me a chance to figure out the details of this new design "genre."

I hadn't read the NY Times Book Review in years (it made me feel suffocated as a reader and depressed as a writer) but I flipped through it this past Sunday at someone else's house. After noting the absence of certain indy bestsellers from the bestseller list, I came across these statements in the review of the novel Mr Chartwell:

France has recently given us “The Kindly Ones” and “The Elegance of the Hedgehog” — the first distasteful, the other pretentious, and both eagerly embraced by a readership keen to be chastened for its middle-class pieties....The English vice, in a literary sense, has lately been to mistake perfectly standard genre fiction for art.

Perhaps I'm missing some bigger picture of the review, but to me it sounded like: This book is pleasant enough...for what it is ("well-packaged chick lit") but readers are best advised not to confuse genre fiction for Real Art. We will tell you what Real Art is, since you the reader don't know any better.

To me, that attitude seems to go along with not putting indy books on the bestseller list. I'm not saying one thing causes the other, but it all seems to be part of a bigger picture.

The review in its entirety is here. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/books/review/book-review-mr-chartwell-by-rebecca-hunt.html?_r=1&ref=review

"I have not seen an indie author on B&N Top 100 List for ebooks. It is possible that a stealthy one may have snuck unnoticed by me but, I honestly haven't seen any listed."

Bella Andre and Tina Folsom have both been in the top hundred recently. As far as I can tell, there aren't a lot of indie authors selling enough over there to rank that high. That doesn't mean B&N is discriminating against us, though.

"A few have "snuck on" - and were immediately outed by Publishers Weekly (Nancy Cartwright)"

1 - Amanda Hocking wouldn't be on the list even if she were published by New York. The NYT doesn't include YA/Children's titles (stemming from the Harry Potter days when they did not want to have JK Rowling hog all the spots on every list at the time)

2 - Joe's 'The List' is doing well on Amazon, but remember that here they are taking ALL sales and not just Kindle sales. Perhaps he doesn't make the cut when you add up all ebook vendors and apply the weightings that the NYT uses

3 - Perhaps John Locke is in a similar situation as Joe in that he is a Kindle guy. Also, note that the NYT exlcudes books offered by a single vendor, so maybe this applies here too (although I did see that John Locke sells on Pubit as well but maybe that's a recent addition). Still, I think Locke said the vast majority of his sales are on Kindle.

Also:

#36 on the eBook fiction list is Debbie Mack and her publisher is listed as Debbie Mack, so it's not that the others slipped through because of having a publisher name.

1 - Amanda Hocking wouldn't be on the list even if she were published by New York. The NYT doesn't include YA/Children's titles (stemming from the Harry Potter days when they did not want to have JK Rowling hog all the spots on every list at the time)

2 - Joe's 'The List' is doing well on Amazon, but remember that here they are taking ALL sales and not just Kindle sales. Perhaps he doesn't make the cut when you add up all ebook vendors and apply the weightings that the NYT uses

3 - Perhaps John Locke is in a similar situation as Joe in that he is a Kindle guy. Also, note that the NYT exlcudes books offered by a single vendor, so maybe this applies here too (although I did see that John Locke sells on Pubit as well but maybe that's a recent addition). Still, I think Locke said the vast majority of his sales are on Kindle.

Also:

#36 on the eBook fiction list is Debbie Mack and her publisher is listed as Debbie Mack, so it's not that the others slipped through because of having a publisher name.

Am I the only one who saw at least 2 indy authors on that NYT e-book list? Debbi Mack, at #35, and another author whose publisher was CreateSpace (Amazon self-publisher)? The list clearly didn't exclude them.

Rose, I think I'd enjoy Mr. Chartwell too. And the reviewer seemed to like many aspects of the book.

What bothers me most about the NYT bestseller list, and some of their reviews, is the idea that something can be chick lit OR literature, genre fiction OR art, an Indie bestseller OR a NY Times official bestseller. As a reader, I think some things aren't either/or, but both.

I've been waiting for this post for a long time Joe. What's the over/under for how long the N.Y. Times ignores the fact indies are outselling bestselling authors with their ebooks. A year? Six months? Are they going to be floating in the Ark before they finally admit those might be rainclouds overhead?

Reminds me of the great hero of Fitzmoromount. What's that noise I hear? Oh just the wind, Sire. A storm wind? No Sire, just the wind. Oh good, well everyone carry on as you were.

...meanwhile, deep in the forest...500,000 armed indie authors march toward the undefended castle.

On another note, long ago, before B and N/ Borders/ Joe Beth/Books a Million... when there were huge numbers of indies on the land, an author had to sell about 1000 books a month to make the bottom of the NYT list.

As a journo and author, I'd say NTY pays no attention to the 'great unwashed' the same way they segregated sales of how to/ advice books from children's books, from paperbacks, from hardbacks, from fiction, from non-fiction. USA Today, I believe was the first to take 'em all on and list by sales from their reporting chains and stores, etc.

Books a Million chain, for a long while, made their own bestseller list because they thought the NYT and PW and USA and Lib Journo lists were too, ah, unearthy in certain ways.

As far as I know, the NYT list cant be bought, but.... some groups would buy up 'in bulk' certain political polemic books and thereby tilt the list... thus the NYT used to run in small print under those indicating that the book(s) showed unusual bulk sales the week prior.

Also NYT likely wont list indie authors, I would guess, because indies are unlikely to pay ka-jillion rupees for ads, as the big six and also the little 600 often enough do. If the indies were throwing money around, NYT would be right there, is my hunch.

Being in NYT list used to be good for one thing, increasing reach/ name recog. Now, watching what Joe and others have done, NYT not needed. Not.

whomever copied out part of a review from NYT, it's just that too that is so passe, so not G. The idea that one person who imagines they breathe rarified air, can be a tastemaker for others. For one, I am glad to see the indies blow that pretentious set of t's on a boar hog out of the water. Ahem, that's a saying from the backwoods where I grew up. It goes... Worthless as a pair of t's on a boar hog. I know. Low class. The nyt would think so too. lol

As someone who has been on that NY list I can tell you that it doesn't have to mean a ton of sales. Recognition, yes. But recognition doesn't necessarily equal mega-sales. My best-selling novel (600,000 copies sold to date) never made the NY list and it sold five times more copies than the one that made the list. The title that didn't make the NY list sold mainly in small, independent bookstores and by vendors on street corners. The NY Times doesn't count them. True story.

Meant to mention that although the NY Times doesn't count books sold in many independents and on street corners, my pocketbook does. Both titles were published traditionally, but I'm thinking of following Joe's route.

1 - The Times' list adds eBook sales across ALL platforms. While Joe and John Locke are cleaning it up on Kindle, they are not doing so well on the other platforms (yet) it seems, and perhaps they just don't have the overall numbers (yet) to make the cut.

2 - Amanda Hocking wouldn't make the list even if she were published by New York. The NYT does not include YA/Children's titles (stemming from the Harry Potter days when they didn't want JK Rowling to take up half the spots on their list)

So, Victoria and Debbie are legit (and not 'slipped on by mistake'), and all indies should feel encouraged that even the NYT will eventually let you on their list if you sell enough ACROSS ALL PLATFORMS.

The Times' list adds eBook sales across ALL platforms. While Joe and John Locke are cleaning it up on Kindle, they are not doing so well on the other platforms (yet) it seems, and perhaps they just don't have the overall numbers (yet) to make the cut.

Wrong. We both outsold Nancy and Vicki, who made the Times' list. We should have been on it.

Amanda Hocking wouldn't make the list even if she were published by New York. The NYT does not include YA/Children's titles.

Twilight was on the Children's Bestseller List on the NYT. So why isn't Amanda?

If you've added up numbers for kindle, ibookstore, smashwords, nook, kobo, and sony and then compared those with the totals for Nancy and Victoria and Debbie and came out ahead, then I admit I am misguided and the NYT has become an irrelevant rag.

As for your second point about Hocking being on the same list as Twilight: I have no response. It's ridiculous for the NYT to leave her off it.

The funny thing is that if you and Amanda and Locke have indeed been intentionally snubbed by the NYT, they're making an even bigger statement (albeit one that will hurt only the NYT) with it than if they had just put you guys on the list in the first place (where you deserve to be).

I also strategized. I placed Distortion at $0.99 and I placed the sequel, Agenda, at $2.99. I hope to gain some customers by making the series cheap to buy into. I also got the covers redone even though the books are basically new. Hopefully the rest of the books will sell themselves:) Thanks for the knowledge, Joe! I've gotten some great advice from your blog.

I received an email from a journalist yesterday telling me he doesn't interview ebook authors. I had included some of my book sales, awards, etc. and he completely missed that all of the books, except for AMONG WOMEN, are print books, including several anthologies in the Chicken Soup and Cup of Comfort books.

I have been following your blog for a few weeks and just published my own ebook last week, but I wonder how long it takes to make a name and the kind of sales you and your colleagues are making. Except for Amanda Hocking, who came out with several books at once, all of the authors I've read on your blog already had fans and a following and several books in print. I wonder if it is possible to make the kind of sales you and the others are listing without a name or without at least a half dozen books in fantasy/paranormal genres.